MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:               22 July 1998               
	DOCKET NUMBER:       AC97-11134

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr.	Calvin M. Fowler		Chairperson	
	Mr.	Fred N. Eichorn		Member	
	Mr.	Raymond V. O’Connor Jr.		Member	

	Also present, without vote, were:

	Mr.	Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Mr.	Joseph A. Adriance 		Analyst	

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A -  Application for correction of military 
                             records
	Exhibit B -  Military Personnel Records (including
	                  advisory opinion, if any)

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  In effect, that his general/under honorable conditions discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he does not understand why he was discharged; that he was issued an undesirable discharge (UD) which was later automatically upgraded to a GD; that his records were destroyed in a fire; and that he later found the enclosed records which he is submitted for an upgrade.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

The applicant's military records were lost or destroyed in the National Personnel Records Center fire of 1973.  Information herein was obtained from alternate sources.

The applicant entered the Regular Army on 10 June 1946 for a period of 3 years. His service included 2 years, 2 months, and 28 days of overseas service in the Asiatic-Pacific Theater.  The highest rank he held on active duty was private first class/E-3, and he was awarded the American Campaign Medal and the World War II Victory Medal. 

The specific facts and circumstances of the applicant’s discharge are not on file; however, there is information available that shows that on 11 February 1949 the applicant was discharged and issued a WD AGO Form 53-59 (Undesirable Discharge).  At the time of his discharge that applicant had completed a total of 
2 years, 7 months, and 3 days of active military service.  

On 10 May 1949 the Secretary of the Army, based on the conclusions of the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB), directed the applicant’s discharge be upgraded from a UD to a GD.  On 13 June 1949 the Adjutant General (AG) issued a correction to the applicant’s WD Form 53 (Military or Enlisted Record and Report of Separation) and issued the applicant an AGO Form 0457-A (GD). 

There is no indication that the applicant ever applied to either the ADRB or this Board to upgrade his GD until 24 February 1997.  The records contained with this application were provided by the applicant which indicates that he was fully aware of the characterization of service and the type of discharge he received as early as 1949.  There is no explanation provided by the applicant as to why he never applied for an upgrade between 1949, when the GD was issued, and 1973 when his official records were destroyed by fire.  

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  The Board concurs with the original findings and conclusions of the ADRB conducted in 1949 and presumes that the applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations.  This Board also presumes administrative regularity in the processing of the applicant's discharge. There is nothing in the available records or in anything submitted by the applicant to overcome that presumption.

2.  The Board noted the applicant’s contention that he was done an injustice and does not know why he was given a less than fully honorable discharge.  However, the Board concluded that the applicant was aware of the type of discharge and the characterization of service he received, based on the correction to his discharge issued by the AG on 13 June 1949.  This provided the applicant ample opportunity to apply, to either the ADRB or this Board, for an upgrade of his discharge, prior to his records being destroyed in 1973.  

3.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that the discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time and that the character of the discharge, as amended by the 1949 ADRB findings, are commensurate with the applicant’s overall record of service.

4.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director